If Obama has a major problem in July, they can always change their mind in July or anytime up until the convention. The reason to commit in June (barring a crazy circumstance) is so you have the summer to start planning for a general election instead of arguing back and forth for a nomination that won't change except in an emergency. There's only about 2 months between the convention and the election. McCain started campaigning in February. It would be nice for the Dem to start in June instead of September. There's no point in not planning for a particular a nominee just because there's a one-in-a-hundred chance of a huge scandal - you can always deal with that if it comes up. It would be like the GOP not rallying about McCain "just in case". It's a massive waste of time and resources.
Sure - they basically suggested that if she doesn't change her stance to match theirs, they may stop contributing to the DCCC. That if Pelosi doesn't do what they want, they will stop helping other Democratic congressional candidates. Isn't that the very definition of a threat?
That's incredibly wishful thinking. While I agree with the premise that the superdelegates won't overturn the primary process, there will be an extremely valid argument if Clinton wins the popular vote in this primary process. A majority of voters, from numerous polls, prioritize the popular vote ahead of the delegate count as well. If you have quotes from the undecideds who say the delegate count is more important to them than the popular vote, then I'll agree that it's substantial. To this point, I haven't seen that -- but please correct me if I'm wrong.
I put quote around "ruled out", as the headline said. She's using her influence, and using the media, to advocate her personal agenda, whatever it may be. What's the purpose of her saying that to public, formally, not once, but twice? How is that going to help the party? So superdelegates voting based on own judgment, if that's against her will, will destroy the party? If that party is that fragile, what's the use of that? Shouldn't the interest of the country, or with her own words "the will of voters" outweigh the interest of party? Have they thought about the possibility to ban MI and FL would destroy the party? Was the party destroyed in the past when superdelegates flexed their muscles? What makes her think it would be now when Dems turning out in record numbers everywhere, when both candidates are raising money in record numbers month after month? Just because Ms. Pelosi said so, or just because some of the "old Washington politicians" said so? When was the last time those "elites" assumed right about what people really want? 20 years ago? If the superdelegates don't have the chance to benefit Clinton, will her campaign support it? If the superdelegates don't have the chance to make or break Obama, will his campaign try so hard to influence them? As much joke as this whole thing might be, they exist now, and they have a defined role. Is it in your opinion, that if candidate A has 1 more pledged delegates, he/she should get all 800 superdelegates? Is that the will of voters?
Just think for a moment how incredibly fraudulent and flawed the caucus process is. Remember, this is how Obama ran off that string of victories, and in some cases got equal or more delegates in a given state, despite losing the popular vote within that same state. It's lunacy. When you consider how disproportionately Hillary's base is disenfranchised by the caucus process, Hillary has a very strong argument against the pledged delegate argument. Obama gamed the system with the caucus process and the will of the people is not being accurately reflected. Remember, an unemployed person and a student is much more valuable in a caucus than an employed person or a senior citizen. Obviously Obama's base is advantaged here. It's a sham and should be subjected to scrutiny.
To my knowledge, they simply stated they were contributors. I didn't see any statement that said they would even consider not being contributors should Pelosi not change her position. Am I missing something?
You're missing the link It isn't an article. It's a distorted rant from a biased source. There is no threat. Just because it's quoted on a Houston basket ball board does not make it nonpartisan.
That's highly unlikely now. I think it was you (or another Clinton supporter) that didn't think the popular vote in Mississippi would be significant. Obama ended up getting over 100,000 more votes there than Clinton. That's about 44% of the difference between the two candidates in Ohio. She is going to have to blowout Obama in most of the remaining contests to catch him in the popular vote.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602918.html Clinton Backers Rebuke Pelosi for Stance on Superdelegates By Dan Balz and Perry Bacon Jr. Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, March 27, 2008; A07 Top fundraisers for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign upbraided House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) yesterday for suggesting that Democratic superdelegates should back the candidate with the most pledged delegates and urged her to respect the right of those delegates to back whomever they choose at the end of the primary season. The criticism represented the latest effort by Clinton's campaign and its allies to beat back talk that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has amassed enough of a lead in pledged delegates that she will not be able to overtake him, and arguments that a continuation of the conflict between the two candidates will hurt the party in November. "You suggested [in a recent television interview] superdelegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd, whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2," the Clinton backers wrote. "This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party's intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984." Arguing that neither Obama nor Clinton (D-N.Y.) will have amassed the 2,024 delegates needed to win the nomination by time the primary season ends in June, the fundraisers urged Pelosi "to clarify your position on superdelegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the national convention in August." Clinton, in an interview with Time magazine published yesterday, accused the Obama campaign of trying "to shut this race down" and noted that even pledged delegates are not legally bound to support the candidate to whom they are pledged. "We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said. Pelosi has not endorsed either candidate. Brendan Daly, her spokesman, said that the speaker recognizes that superdelegates will choose between the candidates but that she "believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes." Obama spokesman Bill Burton in an e-mail criticized what he saw as an implied threat by the group to withhold funds from Democratic Party campaign committees. Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television and one of the organizers of the letter to Pelosi, said in an interview that there would be "no effect" on contributions to the party among the signers of the letter. "This is just fair play," he said. Johnson added that he and the others want to make certain the nomination battle is not declared over prematurely. "It's not the role of the leadership to say 'Vote only the way the pledged delegates go,' " he said. But the letter made it clear that the fundraisers believe their voice should carry real weight with the speaker. Noting their past financial support, they wrote, "We . . . hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters." Clinton, accompanied by daughter Chelsea Clinton, was in Washington yesterday for a pair of fundraising events. Obama is holding four events in New York City. The first of those, at the Madison Avenue offices of Credit Suisse, a financial services giant, will include a "campaign briefing," according to the invitation. Guests will be charged a minimum of $1,000 to attend. Clinton raised $35 million last month, all but $5 million online, but her campaign supporters concede that she still relies on a traditional model of fundraising. "The Obama campaign has found a model that works for them, that has enabled them to raise vast amounts of money online," said Steve Grossman, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a member of Clinton's finance team. "The Clintons, both Hillary and the president, have a virtually inexhaustible treasure trove of relationships they have developed over the years, and they reached out time and time again to those people." Chelsea Clinton's appearance came a day after she rebuked a student at Butler University in Indianapolis on Tuesday who asked whether her mother's credibility had been hurt during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. "Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know, maybe 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business," Clinton said, getting loud applause from the audience, according to the Associated Press.
She can argue to include MI and FL popular votes. If those are included, it is only 100k difference which can be made up easily in the following contests.
There are also states like West Virginia where Clinton has a huge lead and can make up the gap from a state like Mississippi. Will Clinton have to win big? Absolutely. But it's well within the realm of possibility, and certainly not a formality.
No one is going to include Michigan. Obama wasn't on the ballot. That's stupid... <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ULxxBz-PAjg&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ULxxBz-PAjg&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
One thing that annoys me a lot about Obama is his history to shut out other candidates in an election instead of letting the process runs its course. He did it back in his IL senate days. He is doing it again now. Doing this will also destroy the Democratic Party because some Clinton supporters might get turned off and then vote for McCain. As a uniter, he unites people as well as GW Bush based on what we saw so far
Funny how that works... with an actual, reputable source, there's no use of the term "threat" nor is there discussion of it.
I mean if you let Obama takes the Uncommitted votes. It is just an argument she can make to the superdelegates. Whether they buy it or not is their choice.
There's certainly a legitimate argument, however, that you could award the percentage uncommitted to Obama and go from there. From today's WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657950286167233.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Achilleus: That's a much different article then the original post. The only 'threat' reference is a comment from an anonymous Obama spokesperson, which is refuted by one of the persons allegedly making that threat. I wish Hillary would stop saying pledged deligates are not committed. And I wish Obama's campaign would respect the process and intent of Superdeligates (or work within the party to change the system).
I don't see the problem. Pelosi is saying something that is true and on a lot of people's minds -- if superdelegates overturn the popular vote among Democrats, their credibility will be questioned. At the same time, the fundraisers are also saying something quite true -- that superdelegates are there to vote as their own conscience dictates, not just to go along with the popular vote. In the end, superdelegates will vote their own conscience, but the popular vote will likely weigh heavily on that conscience. And, if they do overturn the popular vote, it'll likely be the last election any of them get to be superdelegates for.
Pelosi said it a few weeks ago - and specifically delegates, not votes. Richardson said it a few days before the TX/OH primaries when he was still uncommitted. Here's a quote from a Clinton delegate a few days ago: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensm...ledged_delegate_leader_at_the_convention.html U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, one of Washington’s 17 Democratic superdelegates, isn’t ready to shift her allegiance from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama — yet. But in an interview with The Columbian’s editorial board Monday, she said the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary season in late June will have the strongest claim to the party’s presidential nomination. “I definitely don’t want the superdelegates to be the deciding factor,” she said. “If we have a candidate who has the most delegates and the most states,” the Democratic party should come together around that candidate, Cantwell said. The pledged delegate count will be the most important factor, she said, because that is the basis of the nominating process. It goes on and on. Every few days, another "undecided" says something along the same lines. They are basically all echoing Obama's argument, but waiting to let the process play out. After the last primary, this will be over fairly quickly, barring a major scandal of some sort.
